IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 13 April 2021 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615DA3A12E7 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gnEtkDYZnYll for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x231.google.com (mail-oi1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 452983A1341 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x231.google.com with SMTP id i81so18597578oif.6 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O9LHG08UokX7YyclBFX8nEFR8hAVeV8IHsWEaEASGM8=; b=R75TTK83Pyvc6VPztt9MI+W8rBCWvu/xXlmue/VEE3xO8KcduecoteCez0sNG3GtXd Jtquj45FEpuVNnhJy7AwCtZB57yIEmVyDIwc8ShE5mW+nMCqUdLUgSt/xx4THgqfM4Rc 4y6xzDywS9AnWehczkpUExBaypitI723Au+N0FQ8/pC9t2C77U3hr0maQzTjwEo+RbCX rRxRsTuJAiqAXufFXrlQFGfmCZza6Hi4UexIuvQqPPSmGoHTBc1Owz+0ePUKBd6p1FMB WeSF81K59PGkZG16fDH3Xy66PIkSHIO1zn8iJIrHWuv/WLHMViKa85lbe1quWu8/+Hq0 B0jw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=O9LHG08UokX7YyclBFX8nEFR8hAVeV8IHsWEaEASGM8=; b=uSYkXg89UPBGtuojx2izAwtGnKaYKSX91n8yETyjzs6JUnOoPz10cap9Z14xMksTgS FY4IQRAN26U4D72R/WdXz6AWFwBKvjA/f48emDVR1QAxuvfgp39Z/rMrD9Ch9ArGFOWe 2Zoo2rarFuD5FOe59mhNkDaV8y8GF8gWJaBM5Ss6UZc58KjzBZwVsOdgIScHjelB/Pgr BgHj/AAVunhNDAbsBthB+kTtEK/0W28OMV1aRW4IVVvJcU5Q1hN15E0iJYhxzmTJcfdh ijcfwb4kbxQHR5cGiIfbC68wrzhijEQyiZZYP5DWVE6fKApYaTVuxmoik48qmkvHvdGN 8Nog==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530kY/CRiYD4aiChV9RrFxHa35o0/dVhcB8EFLAKstzXdPezQnck gLxeKYpsd8/sXd2yi+i4fCqGoHBqnAvH5Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzgGaoyFObHYhobWs8s/1krTyptn8YzZennl+wqz70m/dS6vR/WlZBE9D+BSEEV7XY+v7iAKQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1914:: with SMTP id mp20mr21335pjb.180.1618352451219; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s9sm12939790pfc.192.2021.04.13.15.20.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org
References: <20210413200128.D5C3472D2739@ary.qy> <b946972c-99a8-5fab-43d9-894a6cc3a655@gmail.com> <96204CB3-C9E8-4EBB-BBB2-EB59E2F316F3@episteme.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6af53861-1819-383c-8b72-abd18454da79@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:20:46 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <96204CB3-C9E8-4EBB-BBB2-EB59E2F316F3@episteme.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/udrHDE1TkoYFHQnv1_wDbGgDFUQ>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 22:27:07 -0000

I did Reply All. Sorry, should have checked. 

Regards
   Brian

On 14-Apr-21 10:10, Pete Resnick wrote:
> [Removing ietf@ietf.org]
> 
> Was there a particular reason you copied GENDISPATCH on your message? 
> Did you perhaps intend the terminology list?
> 
> pr
> 
> On 13 Apr 2021, at 16:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> On 14-Apr-21 08:01, John Levine wrote:
>>> It appears that Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> said:
>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>>>> I believe it is important for the IETF to say something that has the 
>>>> force of IETF consensus behind it.  Instructions to the RFC Editor 
>>>> have not, and I would
>>>> be against doing so in this case because the lack of consensus makes 
>>>> the editorial changes less well-justified.
>>>>
>>>> If the consensus is that we should not do this, I would be highly 
>>>> disappointed, but I would accept it as a consensus decision.
>>>
>>> Language policing is not part of the RFC Editor's job.
>>
>> That may be true today, but when we have a new regime for the RFC 
>> Series model it might change, or at least, this whole issue might 
>> become part of the style guide.
>>
>>> If the IETF wants to set language standards, that is fine,
>>
>> s/standards/guidelines/
>>
>>> but it is up to the IETF itself to follow and if need be enforce 
>>> those standards, not anyone else.
>>
>> I hope you would apply that statement to all RFC streams, not just the 
>> IETF stream.
>>
>> Regards
>>     Brian
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email